Each output is being mixed with an exponentially-declining share of an exponentially greater number outputs.
My bounty algorithm shows that old outputs will mix until they hit their trigger of maximum mixes then the sender is de-anonymized. Thus the exponentially growing supply of outputs is continually being pruned, either by a mitigation you will implement or by de-anonymization if you don't implement mitigation.
You snipped where I pointed out that this exponential spreading only occurs up to a limit that is close to the total supply of outputs. So there is no conflict here, at least not unless you are able to show a smaller cutoff based on saturation of untracability, which you haven't. So again, you are making this vague "there might be a flaw" claim.
Also, again, you haven't shown that active mitigation is even needed. (I'm not saying it isn't, just that you can't assume it.)
If XMR had responded to BCX's points about the quick difficulty readjustment and 20% discard with a whitepaper about such issues and the Cryptonote solution, then I would be more impressed
We can't and won't respond with a whitepaper to every vague claim of "there might be a flaw" that is posted on bitcointalk whether that is from you or BCX or anyone else.
Thus that is a difference between XMR and my style. Different culture. I took BCX's points seriously and made some interesting discoveries from it.
Oh, so you responded with a whitepaper. Really? Where is it?
And you continue to ignore my repeated point that if they control the mining, they can effectively ban.
I don't deny that authorities can ban (or launch nuclear wars), and maybe that ban will be effective and maybe not.
I only deny that they can effectively blacklist within this system short of a ban.